Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Arthur Mann]

No, what is observed is positively and negatively charged particles being accelerated away from the Sun.

Close, but false.

In the standard solar model there are no (or very few) free neutrons in the Sun. The SSM suggests there should be many many neutrinos produced. That is exactly what is observed in countless experiments.

Actually the opposite is the case, no experiment has ever verified this supposed "neutrino" flux from the sun. Researchers who do claim success announce that they've found only a third of the neutrinos required by the "standard model". Do they let this falsify the model? No. They invent new "flavors" of neutrinos, and announce that some of them are changing "flavors" en route from the sun. Their "proof"? They detect neutrinos by "flavor" and find an exact 1-1 ratio for all three "flavors"! How convenient. This reeks of ad hoc invention, and is not how science is waged. Scientists allow their models to be falsified. If your model predictions are off by an order of magnitude, your model is likely utterly wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I think it that gravitational forces do not apply to plasmas, because they are only negligibly affected by gravity, they are dominated utterly by electromagnetic forces.

That doesn't answer my question. It's quite simple: either F = GMm/r² is a good description of gravity, or it isn't. Yes or no. Whether or not other forces are large enough to dominate over this force is irrelevant to this question, since I'm not asking about other forces yet. I'm asking a simple yes/no question, so I'd like a simple yes/no answer.

 

[Arthur Mann]

So there isn't any quantitative objective agreement on what an electric Sun model actually is.

False.

 

[Arthur Mann]

That doesn't answer my question.

You're right, and I'm not going to answer it, because it's an irrelevant distraction.

This thread is about the electric star model, not gravity. If you think your little idea about gravity is in some way relevant to the electric star model, try and demonstrate that. Perform experiments. Publish papers. Even interject here if you think it's warranted. Otherwise, if you don't think it's relevant to the electric star model, keep mum.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Okay, so the proponents of the electric Sun conjecture don't really know how it works.

False, also flawed premise, electric star model is based on experiment and observation, and is verified many times over in such a fashion. To suggest that it is "conjecture" is misleading, to say the least.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed uncvil comment

 

[dasmiller]

You're right, and I'm not going to answer it, because it's an irrelevant distraction.

This thread is about the electric star model, not gravity.

Many of us believe that the sun is held together by gravity, and that the sun's gravity must be strong enough to prevent it from flying apart due to any net charge it might have. We see this as one of many significant 'challenges' for Electric Sun.

And in that light, gravity is actually quite relevant.

 

[GeeMack]

You're right, and I'm not going to answer it, because it's an irrelevant distraction.

This thread is about the electric star model, not gravity. If you think your little idea about gravity is in some way relevant to the electric star model, try and demonstrate that. Perform experiments. Publish papers. Even interject here if you think it's warranted. Otherwise, if you don't think it's relevant to the electric star model, keep mum.

Apparently there is a difference of opinion among the electric Sun proponents on that particular point...

The iron usually falls back due to gravity.

To suggest that any of the observable properties or behaviors of the sun are explicable in terms of "gravity" is an obscene mockery of science. Gravity only negligibly affects charged bodies able to interact electrically. The sun is one such body, so are all the other known bodies in the solar system. Gravity is mooted, therefore.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have not tried to put forth any quantitative information.

False.

If you've put forward quantitative information, it should be rather easy to prove that you have by linking to such posts. So... prove me wrong.

Evaluate the math proving laboratory experiments using electric discharge in plasma scale very nicely with observed solar flare phenomena.

And the total power output of the sun? How's that scaling going?

 

[Arthur Mann]

But the calculation that the authors do that induction woudl take a million years to release the amount of energy onvolved with solar flares has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection.

Since "magnetic reconnection" is a pipe dream, I wouldn't expect anything that makes sense to be about it.

It is your assertion that exploding double layers do match solar flares.

It's my assertion, and that assertion has been verified by experiment, long before I ever made the assertion. Keep that in mind, the experiments came first and the science has dictated belief. If not for the experimental verification I would have no idea this idea even existed, because I don't routinely investigate naked claims in the absence of even a shred of evidence. This is why I don't spend any time trying to debunk psychics, or the tooth fairy, because I know there is not one shred of evidence to support those ideas.

From what I have read they match the total energy output and some of the observed x-rays but not the details.

For starters, there are no observed features of solar flares that can not be reproduced by electric discharges. Also consistent with experimental results is the time (when scaled with size), in addition to total energy output, nature of output (x-rays and so on), size (when scaled with time). What features do you think can NOT be reasonably explained by electric discharge? Don't fall back on your default position of "it's magnetic reconnection lalalalaalala!". Try and come up with a single feature of solar flares that can not be reasonably and readily explained by electric star models.

So Arthur Mann will be producing evidence that your idea that solar flares are produced by electrical discharges is not only wrong by defintion but can be replaced by an even better theory.

Let's ignore for a moment that what you say above it utterly false. There is no contradiction between my version of electric discharge and Michael Mozina's. This is one area where Michael and I have STRONG agreement.

This "divide and conquer" tactic is likely to fail for you. For one thing, Michael Mozina and I are not on some team playing a game. As far as I can tell we're both independent researchers who have come to many of the same conclusions based on the experimental verification of hypotheses derived from direct observation. That we may disagree on some things (perhaps the nature of gravity, from the look of it) is not relevant to the model, and your attempts to start some kind of "infighting" is doomed to failure, because, as I explained, Michael Mozina and I are not on some kind of "team" that you can disrupt.

 

[Arthur Mann]

So... prove me wrong.

Scroll up, it's there.

How's that scaling going?

Scroll up to the post where I prove mathematically how very nicely electric discharges in laboratory plasmas scale up to the size of solar flares.

 

[Ziggurat]

This thread is about the electric star model, not gravity. If you think your little idea about gravity is in some way relevant to the electric star model, try and demonstrate that.

I should think it's obvious why it's relevant. Gravity still exists, even under an electric sun model. You have tried to brush it under the rug, but until we calculate numbers for gravitational forces and electromagnetic forces, you are simply assuming that the latter dominate the former. I don't think the assumption is justified. I'm attempting to prove it's unjustified. Doing so requires that we discuss gravity. It may turn out at the end of the day that I'm wrong (though you have done nothing to try to demonstrate this), but even if I am, I'm not off topic.

Perform experiments. Publish papers. Even interject here if you think it's warranted.

The relevant experiments have already been performed and papers already published, though not by me. You have dismissed them out of hand, without actually addressing them.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Apparently there is a difference of opinion among the electric Sun proponents on that particular point...

I can't speak for Michael, but I can speak for myself. For myself I'll say that it's readily demonstrated that plasmas are affected by electromagnetic forces many orders of magnitude more strongly than by "gravity". So far as I can tell, Michael holds the same position. I've never seen him say anything to the contrary, though I did of course disagree with his claim that iron falls back into the sun due to "gravity", as you have noted twice now.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed incivility[edit]

 

[Ziggurat]

Scroll up to the post where I prove mathematically how very nicely electric discharges in laboratory plasmas scale up to the size of solar flares.

I didn't ask about solar flares, I asked about the total solar power output.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Gravity still exists, even under an electric sun model.

You think gravity is real? Go prove it in another thread. This thread is about the electric star model, which supposes that the entire universe is filled with plasmas, negligibly affected by gravity. It isn't just me that's ignoring gravity, over 99% of the observable universe routinely does so.

 

[tusenfem]

No, what is observed is positively and negatively charged particles being accelerated away from the Sun.

Close, but false.

So, now the electric sun hypothesis also denies the observed fact that the solar wind consists of electrons and ions moving both awaz from the sun?

Wow, this model gets more and more ... I don't have a word for it, but correct would be like the furthest away from what I want to say.

 

[sol invictus]

You think gravity is real? Go prove it in another thread. This thread is about the electric star model, which supposes that the entire universe is filled with plasmas, negligibly affected by gravity. It isn't just me that's ignoring gravity, over 99% of the observable universe routinely does so.

So we are required to ignore a force of nature to discuss your "theory"?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here is the definition of "unicorn":

a white horse with a long horn growing from its forehead

Does being able to quote a definition of something make it real?

No. The title of this thread provides an even more relevant example.

Oh, so you're defining "magnetic energy" with an equation? That's a novel approach to defining words, using math.

After hundreds of years, the success of that approach is hardly controversial. If you don't believe me, you should read a physics textbook.

All that said, the physics of magnetic reconnection is presented in great detail, in both physical theory and laboratory practice, in many sources, some of which I have already cited numerous times in the past.

I realize you believe this, but it takes more than belief to constitute science. Magnetic field lines are not even physical, they are imaginary, how can they "reconnect", or for that matter do anything real? How can you manipulate imaginary objects?

If you aren't prepared to read an actual book on the subject you're attempting to discuss, then you might benefit from some explanations I wrote at a level appropriate for cev08241971 and Michael Mozina:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6628028&postcount=349
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637486&postcount=499

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed uncivil comment in quoted previous moderated material

 

[Arthur Mann]

Many of us believe that the sun is held together by gravity, and that the sun's gravity must be strong enough to prevent it from flying apart due to any net charge it might have.

Your belief is quite common, I'd venture to say it's almost exactly as common as belief in imaginary deities. Are you prepared to cite consensus as one of the fundamental tenets of science? If not, we may safely dismiss this.

Let's assume we wanted to contradict your position, though. I take it that it is also your belief that the sun is a ball of gaseous material. Can you show some experiments that demonstrate gases held together by their own gravity? Let's take it even a step further, to re-examine your initial assumptions. Can you generate gravity? Can you block it or amplify it? Can you manipulate it in any fashion? If you can't, that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.

 

[D'rok]

You think gravity is real?

You don't?


ETA:

that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.

Wow. I guess you don't.

 

[Arthur Mann]

After hundreds of years, the success of that approach is hardly controversial.

I'll leave it to each reader to determine if using math to define words that are then used to define reality (all in the absence of experimental verification) is a valid approach to science.